You use wikipedia for statistics in a political debate. I swear my English proff would have had a heart attack.
MikeyDB- its extremely refeshing to read your views..
Martin Amis: Islamic states are less evolved
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
You use wikipedia for statistics in a political debate. I swear my English proff would have had a heart attack.
MikeyDB- its extremely refeshing to read your views..
Islamic states are ''In the case of human rights ... most definite "yes, they are less evolved than the West". minority rights, voting rights...
Minorities in Christian professing countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, and others would likely take exception to that. In the Old West racists used to say ''the only good Indian, is a dead Indian.'' Racists in those countries openly say that today. Worse still is the crimes their governments commit against these innocents.
Minorities in Christian professing countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, and others would likely take exception to that. In the Old West racists used to say ''the only good Indian, is a dead Indian.'' Racists in those countries openly say that today. Worse still is the crimes their governments commit against these innocents.
''It's cited''
But you did not answer my question: does the 87 % figure include Hitlerian Reagan's terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 300,000 Ixils in Guatemala?
But you did not answer my question: does the 87 % figure include Hitlerian Reagan's terrorism that resulted in the deaths of 300,000 Ixils in Guatemala?
Side note: Wikipedia is just as equal veracity to other sources.
The concept that its not is just elitism. Sorry folks, money doesn't make something credible. You're English proff can have a heart attack all he wants, the fact of the matter is that wikipedia is proven credible, and the concept of mass collaboration is proven superior to isolated specialists (like him)
The concept that its not is just elitism. Sorry folks, money doesn't make something credible. You're English proff can have a heart attack all he wants, the fact of the matter is that wikipedia is proven credible, and the concept of mass collaboration is proven superior to isolated specialists (like him)
``It wasn't 87% and that's not a question.``
Yeah, right.
Reagan's Hitlerian campaign is an example of the type of terrorism that the West has imposed upon Third World people for over 100 years. Millions have died. Yet, those who cry about terrorism never concern themselves with the terrible consequences that their heroes inflict upon others.
Yeah, right.
Reagan's Hitlerian campaign is an example of the type of terrorism that the West has imposed upon Third World people for over 100 years. Millions have died. Yet, those who cry about terrorism never concern themselves with the terrible consequences that their heroes inflict upon others.
Good thing they aren't part of the west.
Sorry, try again. With you , I keep thinking your probably just some rational guy with a fake account trolling and laughing at how people take your ridiculous assertions at face value and respond to them.
I often quote wikipedia too... But its not 100% reliable. I have come across inaccurate wikipedia entries which are clearly propaganda. Call me paranoid, but I believe people exist who are paid to fill wikipedia with propaganda.
Its possible that wikipedia will evolve into the "Ministry of Truth" and wikipidians will become very much like "Winston Smith".
If you have no idea of what I am getting at, here is a link:
On topic:
Any state which is "religious based" or "Theocratic" will never achieve its full potential, because their religious minorities will never realize their full potential. I see Theocratic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia as transitional. Inevitably they will evolve peacefully or violently toward free religion.
Without outside interference, I can see Iran becoming a "free religion" state peacefully. Saudi Arabia seems headed toward civil war as soon as the oil money runs out or the number of Princes exceeds Saudi Arabia's ability to support their extravagant lifestyle.
Its possible that wikipedia will evolve into the "Ministry of Truth" and wikipidians will become very much like "Winston Smith".
If you have no idea of what I am getting at, here is a link:
On topic:
Any state which is "religious based" or "Theocratic" will never achieve its full potential, because their religious minorities will never realize their full potential. I see Theocratic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia as transitional. Inevitably they will evolve peacefully or violently toward free religion.
Without outside interference, I can see Iran becoming a "free religion" state peacefully. Saudi Arabia seems headed toward civil war as soon as the oil money runs out or the number of Princes exceeds Saudi Arabia's ability to support their extravagant lifestyle.
I agree there are people paid to enter information into wikipedia, its harder now with Wikipedia Scanner.
But conversely, every other encyclopedia is also filled with paid staff, and with a vastly smaller staff and huge reprint times, human errors can sit for years. In Wikipedia its usually fixed in days as a maximum. The other problem is unlike what many people think, altering a webpage does not make the old version cease to exist. Old copies in web archives can still exist if people want them too, much like old copies of newspapers still float around.
But conversely, every other encyclopedia is also filled with paid staff, and with a vastly smaller staff and huge reprint times, human errors can sit for years. In Wikipedia its usually fixed in days as a maximum. The other problem is unlike what many people think, altering a webpage does not make the old version cease to exist. Old copies in web archives can still exist if people want them too, much like old copies of newspapers still float around.
``laughing at how people take your ridiculous assertions at face value and respond to them.``
Perhaps if it members of your family who died in those types of atrocities you wouldn't be laughing so much.
Perhaps if it members of your family who died in those types of atrocities you wouldn't be laughing so much.
No, I probably would be pretty angry at you for distorting the facts, trying to inflate figures and dehumanize people you don't like, turning my suffering into a cheap joke as you attempt to use it to score political points (poorly).
When you distort the facts so obviously (as you are doing) for your own political ends, you destroy all credibility of anyone who actually knows about the event.
Suddenly someone talking about the real event, with its real number of dead is considered a loony, because you decided to turn the whole thing into a joke by exclaiming ridiculous numbers.
Yep, I'd be mighty pissed at you for turning my suffering into a joke in your poorly executed attempts to turn it into political propaganda for your own agenda.
When you distort the facts so obviously (as you are doing) for your own political ends, you destroy all credibility of anyone who actually knows about the event.
Suddenly someone talking about the real event, with its real number of dead is considered a loony, because you decided to turn the whole thing into a joke by exclaiming ridiculous numbers.
Yep, I'd be mighty pissed at you for turning my suffering into a joke in your poorly executed attempts to turn it into political propaganda for your own agenda.
Agreed but an important difference is that in one case the people are paid by the encyclopedia and expected to be objective. In the other case they are paid by who they are writing about and they are expected to be subjective.
``distort the facts``
Had you bothered to look up the links I gave previously you would know that the numbers cited are correct.
But then, you probably believe that the more dead Ixils and others there are, the better for everybody else.
Had you bothered to look up the links I gave previously you would know that the numbers cited are correct.
But then, you probably believe that the more dead Ixils and others there are, the better for everybody else.